handoff

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: size limit (~2KB), single surfacing, archiving behavior (not deleted), and the future-intent orientation. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but these are not critical for this tool. Minor gap: no mention of whether a note can be overwritten or edited after creation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences perfectly front-load the purpose, then add crucial details. Every sentence adds unique value: purpose, intent, constraints. No redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple write tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers input constraints and lifecycle. It explains the retrieval mechanism and archiving. However, it does not describe the return value or error cases; but given the tool's nature, this omission is minor.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The parameter descriptions in the schema are clear and sufficient. The main description adds context about size limit (relevant to 'note') but does not provide additional semantics beyond the schema. No extra value for parameter understanding.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Explicitly states 'Write a handoff note for the next instance', specifying both the action and resource. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'record_insight' by noting size limits and from 'where_did_i_leave_off' as the retrieval mechanism.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Intent for the future, not a record of the past.' Mentions size limit and directs longer thoughts to 'record_insight'. Also explains lifecycle ('surfaced exactly once, then archived'), helping the agent decide when to use this vs. other tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.